Was JOAN OF ARC ROASTED TOO LATE?

Of worshipped stupidities the most vicious aspects of thought and emotional systems are made. In particular regarding nationalism and other religions of the violent type. As the emperor who was never observed to have no clothes, although he wore none, most obvious, most vicious stupidities can live on, unruffled, respected by all. And they live on, because they are respected by all.

To kill those vampires of humanity, the truth needs to be driven through their hearts. They live on, as long they have not been denounced for what they are. Denunciation has to precede examination, and condemnation.

It’s only when slavery in the colonies was denounced, as the outrage against humanity that it was, that it could be outlawed. Denunciation had to precede extinction. Similarly, the denunciation of the Catholic Inquisition. Those who denounced the Inquisition were submitted to extreme pain, suffering and death, for centuries. Those sacrifices had to precede the extinction of the Inquisition.

A case in point of vicious worship: that of who one could, and presently will, describe as the homicidal bigot, Jeanne d’Arc. Behind what would then be such a vicious worship? Mass homicidal nationalism, and alienation, disguised into a religion of sort.

The Daughter of French King Charles VI of France and Isabeau of Bavaria Marries the King of England, Recognizing his Right to the Throne of France (2 June 1420). The “100 Year War” is Over. Unfortunately, the formidable Franco-British king Henry V fell ill and died in 1422. Their Son Henry VI Became King of France & England (1422).

A definitive settlement of the “100 year war” between Paris and London had been reached: Henry V, and his descendants, were to rule England and France. The Treaty of Troyes, signed 21 May 1420, in cathédrale Saint-Pierre, between Charles VI, king of France, and Charles V, king of England, anticipated that Henry V, son-in-law of Charles VI, would succeed to him after Charles’ death.

The Treaty was immensely popular in the region which had been devastated by generations of fratricidal war between French noble families to rule the kingdom of France. Henry V, a direct descendant of the famous French king Philippe IV Le Bel, was celebrated when he entered Paris. Unfortunately the English monarch died in August 1422, three-month before his father in law, Charles VI. Henry’s ten month old son, Henry VI, became king of France and England. And therefrom an opportunist queen engineered a renewal of the disastrous war (which, on and off, will last until 1815…)

A definitive settlement of the “100 year war” between Paris and London had been reached: Henry VI’s descendants, were to rule England and France. His mother, Catherine de Valois, was as French as French could be. The advisers were French, although the Duke of Bedford was made regent of France & England. By austerity, Bedford used cheap English-speaking troops.

Jeanne d’Arc shattered the peace, re-launched a civil war.

Joan of Arc’s legacy is four more centuries of Franco-English war. For no good reason, whatsoever. Let me forgive those who may wish that she had been roasted sooner.

What’s the story of Jeanne in a nutshell? That of a vicious pawn.

Signature Of A Devil?

To understand the “100 Year War”, one has to backtrack to 1300 CE (at the very least!). Philippe IV “Le Bel” decided to tax the Church, in accord with his (part) vassal, the king of England. The Church begged to differ, but was forced to obey. Later Philippe had the Pope arrested (and soon dead). Besides Philippe expropriated banksters, the Templar Monks. The chief bankster, while roasting in the Royal presence, threw a spell on the king.

Within a year, the king fell from his horse, and died from it. His three sons followed in quick succession: to the kingship, and then, death.

The Salic law said that the next in line was their sister. Isabelle. Isabelle de France… Queen of England. Absolute Queen of England: her husband had been killed (in a painful way, making lots of noise).

Isabelle had a reputation in Paris. Having made her own sting operation, she denounced to her (usually extremely well-informed) dad the wives of her brothers, for drastic infidelity. Two were sent to monastery, and the future (would-be) queen spent winter in a very cold jail, before being (some say) strangled.

In any case, lawyers in Paris refused to apply the law of the ancient Salian Franks. They refused to have Isabelle as Queen of France, on the ground that she was a woman, inaugurating centuries of grotesque French sexism contradicting the very roots of Francia, the philosophical roots of equality.

Isabelle, trying to outsmart her Parisian opponents, then resigned, and put her 16-year-old son, Edward III, on the throne (of England). Something she would soon regret. Edward, grandson of Philippe Le Bel, a Frenchman in blood and claw, son of Isabelle de France, no less, then asked for his due, the throne of France.

The lawyers in Paris refused, again: they had made other arrangements. The war between London and Paris was on, and lasted nearly five centuries (until 1815).

Who-was-boss was not a new problem in Franco-Anglia (the Franks, like imperial Rome, had been plagued by that problem, because only re-establsihing a full republic could solv it).

When the Duke of Normandy, vassal to the King of the Franks became king of England, he established an oath between him and the People similar to one that existed in Rome with the army, or between People and Princeps (hence the executions of around 3,000 Christians who had refused to take that oath, mostly under emperor Galerius’ influence, in the 300-310 CE period; “Christian” leaders would later use that martyrdom to justify, sort of, the killing and terror on millions they would exert in the following 14 centuries).

A weird situation followed: was, or not, the London king subject to Paris? According to the old ways of the Franks, yes: the king in Paris was viewed as (Roman) emperor (since the Verdun split). What was clear is that French were in command on both sides of the channel. The entanglements only got worse, from 1066 until 1320.

An example was Eleonor of Aquitania, duchess, and ruler of an immense realm, semi autonomous for two millennia. After her long union with the king of France was, clearly sterile, she divorced. And married the King of England, with whom she had many children. In the process she brought Aquitaine over, and that’s why Richard the Lion hearted was born, raised, married, lived and died in France (but for a few months he spent in England; he spent more time crusading side by side with the king of France, his “compagnon d’arme”).

After immense destructions, generations of war, and further dynastic problems on the Paris side, cooler heads prevailed. It was admitted that the rightful sovereign of France was Henry V, king of England, descendant of Philipe Le Bel, and it was decided that he would become, indeed, king of France.

The University of Paris, the City of Paris, and people all over the regions that had known generations of inconclusive war wholeheartedly agreed: give us just one king, one government, and peace!

Right from the start Jeanne of Arc got military support by a Queen from the South, the formidable Yolande of Aragon.

While “Jehanne” was still very young and unknown, Queen Yolande sent her soldiers to act as her bodyguards. Jeanne’s early miracles were fake (surprise, surprise). For example, she had encountered the would be king long before recognizing him “miraculously” in a crowd (that miracle is still repeated to this day, as if a fact, whereas it was just a ridiculous lie).

There was more than one Jeanne (at least another was burned; Jeanne bore witness against one of her competitors at some point). Preacheding against the English was a successful business model (similar to Muslim Fundamentalism as a convenient façade to banditry).

Same story as with the several would-be Christ that really existed at the times of Christ (differently from the mythical Christ himself, whose existence outside of Saint Paul’s head remains unproven).

So what happened? What was the real story of Jehanne d’ Arc? The southern lords of France were anxious to NOT see a formidable rule by Paris and London in the north: the double capitals, sitting in the middle of the largest arable lands in Europe, would have subjugated them totally.

So they contrived a story for children. Then the story ran out of control, and deep real hostility between England and France appeared. The truth was simpler: the story of a woman spurned by fate, who fought back.

Yolande of Arago was also Queen of many other things, including Sicily. She was married in 1416 to become queen of France, too, but her husband died before he could be crowned. Yolande later became the mother in law of the king of France she installed later on the throne, Charles VII. She was a specialist of legal assassinations, and the like. She was a most efficient diplomat: she turned Brittany against Britain, among other feats.

Yolande of Arago really won the “100 Year War”. Books have been written about her. She was the determined enemy of Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France, architect of the Troyes treaty (that had put Henry V on the throne of France). The two queens fought, on battlefields, for 22 years. Interestingly, women are the main actors of the “100 Year war”.

Such is the truth never told about Joan of arc; she was just another pawn of Yolande. Jeanne of Arc has nearly no redeeming value. In the end, all she preached was war, “booting” (“bouter”) the English out of “France”. Some God or Mary in the sky, or in her ear, had told her that some guy was the real king (although, logically, and historically, he was not).

Jeanne d’Arc was a dangerous fanatic, of the worst type. After a truce with the so-called “English” left her idle, she wrote to the Hussites, an intellectual group, backed by the university of Prague, which had broken with the standard Catholic Church on some doctrinal points. The followers of Huss had defeated crusades sent against them (they were defeated thanks to the highest treachery of the topmost Catholic hierarchy, sealing the doom of Catholicism).

Joan’s letter is extremely violent. It accuses Hussites of “obscenity“, “superstition“, threatens them with “extermination“. She promises to “remove your madness and foul superstition, taking away either your heresy or your lives.”

On the fanatical scale, that letter puts her higher than Osama ben Laden: she threatened to kill people who threatened her country in no way, just because they had “exerted a choice” (that is what “heretical” meant). [Fanatical supporters of “Jehanne” have argued that the letter was a fake, but then the Latin original was found, signed by her secretary, Pasquerel. Although “Jehanne” spoke several languages, she did not read or write, making her the equal of Muhammad!]

We have numerous letters of “Jehanne” where she promises, under various formulations, that she will “kill all those who don’t obey her“. (See note.)

Many of Joan of Arc’s exploits consisted often in attacking French cities. She had to siege Paris, while supposedly trying to deliver France from… the “Anglois”!

Jeanne taught hysterical trust in superstition, voices in one’s head (but only if the right person heard them, the others should burn). Jeanne taught hatred of intellectuals (as found in the universities of Paris and Prague), hatred of the “Anglois” (that is the other, whoever the “other” is; in truth only the foot soldiers spoke English, at a time when France enjoyed many languages). Jeanne taught, to all of Europe, that nationalism should raise to sainthood, and thinking, to the backwoods.

Voltaire had made fun of Jehanne in a 20,000 words work. As the homicidal ideology of nationalism rose, so did Jehanne. Jehanne was made a saint in 1920. Jeanne became a Twentieth Century nationalistic sensation. Some go around saying Joan of Arc is a “patron saint of France”. Whatever that means. She is in good company, one of her colleagues is “Saint Louis”, a dedicated criminal of the worst type, who wrote a lot of his bloodlust.

There should be a philosophical cleansing program of all the celebrities incarnating vicious ideals. The Austrian philosopher, Sir Karl Popper did this a bit in “The Open Society & Its Enemies“. There is much more to be done. In particular many of the French and European leaders loom large on today’s civilization, and some of them had tremendous flaws. By honoring them, one honors trains of thought and emotion that were conducive to immensely vicious activities.

Reciprocally some thinkers have been ignored, or defamed, for all the wrong reasons… To learn well from history, one has to get it right first.

Yes, Jehanne d’Arc was charming, extremely witty, attaching. But Jehanne also incarnated the passion for one of the oldest vices: superstitious tribalism. Her towering presence in history hides much more valuable characters, such as various French and “English” kings who, in the 50 years preceding her roasting had not just decided that the Franco-French war had to stop, no matter what, but instituted extensive truces, and even, in the end, found the legal solution that the forces behind Jehanne illegally shattered.

Joan of Arc represents exactly the sort of evils that we have to learn to throw in the fire. A tasty morsel, best carbonized.

***

Patrice Aymé

***

Notes: Jehanne As Anti-Sexist heroin: The only teaching of Joan of Arc worth keeping is her insistence that women could do a lot of tasks men did in the Late Middle Ages, such as war. She was, technically, burned for, wearing man’s clothing (after pledging she would not do that anymore)… In any case, whereas Jeanne was a nationalistic, superstition devil, she was a genuine anti-sexist saint. Supposing, of course that she was really the one who burned (there is some historical evidence that she did not, and considering her extremely mighty sponsors, that would not be surprising; burning a woman a month was routine in Rouen!) Because of her mighty, conspiring (plutocratic!) sponsors, much about “Jehanne” is unknown, even though it’s supposed to be known (for example there are no portrait of her, at a time when photographic like reproduction were made). Her age is a case in point; she is given as 19 when burned, but there is one piece of very strong evidence that she was actually 23!

(“I’m war chief, and in any place where your gents are found, I will have them leave, whether they want it or not, and if they don’t want to obey, I will have all of them killed. I am sent here by God, King of heaven, body for body (sic), to boot you out of all of France”)

26 Responses to “Was JOAN OF ARC ROASTED TOO LATE?”

Dear GMax: First Jehanne, or the person standing on her behalf, was really roasted. After a considerable time, during which Jehanne “called to Jesus much more than six times“, and for water, too!, once she had given up the ghost, the executioneer raked back the fire, and showed all the spectators that it was really a woman who had been burned, by detailing her anatomy.

The fire was started again later, to reduce her to ashes.

By helping restart a war that had stopped, and lasted nearly four centuries, Jehanne made herself accomplice of major mass criminality.

As far as provocation, well, truth comes first. The last thing philosophers ought to worry about is the cries of the Beotians (to seize Gauss’ notion, and turn it upside down)
PA

dear Eugen: You put your mind’s finger exactly on it: “She became a symbol of innocence“. It’s actually hilarious, considering all the people she threatened to kill. If somebody should have been at ease, facing her own execution, that should have been her! But I think she did not expect to be killed. Her crafty sponsors may have thought she was more useful, burned alive. Yolande of Arago was perfectly capable of such computations, and even much more subtle ones.

Both the French and English kings, in the late Fourteenth Century, spoke in eloquent terms, from all angles, about the necessity of stopping the fraticidal war between everybody and everybody in England and France. The Treaty of Troyes happened a generation later, and thus was the fruit of a deep philosophical process. I would say the pacifists were in a crushing majority, even among the elite.

Those who wanted to go with the war were few, and called monsters, even in official documents (such as the Treaty of Troyes).
In France, the city of Paris wanted peace, and was besides with joy, expecting Henry V (“of england”) as king of the reunited kingdom. The University of Paris was 100% behind the peace process. Its rector, Cauchon, is depicted in conventional nationalistic and pig headed “French” history as a sadistic monster who wanted the innocent jeanne dead. Well, he did want her dead, but she was the monster.

The machinations of Yolande and company were a well organized conspiratorial accident that worked, and had tremendous consequences (another such was the assassination of Julius Caesar).

I did not write about the military history. It went in 3 moves:
a) At Azincourt 1415 the Celtic (“Welsh”) long bow archers destroyed the “French” knights.
b) However the spiritually reinforced knights of the south surprised the long bow archers at the battle of Patay (next to the demarcation line between north and south, legal, and illegal). They annihilated them.
c) tenhears after Patay the southern French, led by a certain “Bureau” invented and deployed field artillery, and threw “English” forces out of (most of) France.
PA

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” -John F. Kennedy

And on the subject of “worshipped stupidities”, among my circle of friends and acquaintances there are some very nice people who [to take a random selection] have variously assured me that “evolution is being more discredited every day,” “global warming is a fraud or myth or something and doesn’t exist and isn’t happening”, and “America is the greatest nation ever (and is God’s special favorite or something like that)”.

Just as I don’t argue with my cat, I don’t argue with these people as there’s no point in it.

Apparently this has always gone on, that is the triumph of “belief” over “facts, knowledge or thinking”. “God” seems to come up a lot as the debate killer app in these things.

Myself, I think that it all grounds ultimately in primate psychology, that we’re not as far down out of the trees or off the savannah as we like to think, and that there’s a rich future of superstitious tribal myth in front of us.

Dear bowtiejack: excellent quote! My esteem for JFK, already very high, has climbed further. I heap contempt on lots of (most) USA presidents, but I do admire that son of a plutocrat, JFK. I had no doubt that, had JFK lived, things would have been VERY different. For example, he had just taken spectacular action in Vietnam (getting rid of the Diems, 2-3 weeks before he got himself assassinated). A difference, fundamental: JFK was an authentic war hero (OK, so is George Bush senior…)

Myths get a life of their own. Segolene Royal, ex-presidential finalist (2007, defeated by Sarko with 47%) was telling how much she esteemed Jeanne D’Arc. Nothing specific whatsoever, though. The commons esteem Joan of Arc, because it’s estimable to esteem Joan of Arc. Of unsupportable esteem much stupidity is made.

A lie repeated one million times as if it were the truth, becomes the truth, in the popular imagination.

Superstition is just word for:”lack of observation“. The unexamined elites profit from it, hence the rich future you envision… The fly in the ointment is that the means of destruction at our disposal are such, and the crisis too, that a great age of war may be coming. Wars are won modulo great observations, thus are no friends to superstition…
PA

Thanks Paul!
Whatever my critiques of “Jehanne”, she had an excellent adventure! She was extremely gutsy, and that is how she was caught; she fought a rear guard action, as a matter of principle and honor, although her white panache was perfectly recognizable, and she knew the enemy would try to seize her. (After the extermination of the long bow archers at Patay, especially!).

She was no doubt a tease, in more ways than one, and very smart, somebody spicy to interact with.
PA

Assuming you are right about the unitary mindset of most French and English luminaries (which is at odds with the fact that war went on after Joan’s execution, and a very real entity called France put considerable effort into doing precisely what she had vowed to do, despite many more invasion attempts) – you still deliberately shirk the issue of the nature of the Greater United Kingdom which would have ensued from the proposed peace.

Henry may have been French, but his country was not. What would have become of France is a matter of speculation, of course. But we have rather robust examples which should give pause to eulogists of the Greater United Kingdom. England’s record as de facto owner of the United Kingdom is nothing to be proud about: religious discrimination, land grabbing, murderous repression, a medieval class system and widespread, systematic economic looting appalled even the clearer-thinking English.

Joan of Arc may have been a fanatic, a front and and a pawn, but without the impetus she gave to the (then) losing side, IMHO France would have become a kind of Ireland. Thanks but no thanks. Our own Ancien Régime was only marginally better, but at least we could get rid of it.

Dear Dominique: Well, I understand what you say, but you are referring IMHO to the England that arose with the “West Country Men“. I wrote long essays about them and their hyper abusive, exploitative, “extractive” mentality. I’m sure one can search my site and find long indignant essays about them, and how they implied the present plutocratic mentality. The WCM are the ones who attacked Ireland, and that was around 1600, two centuries later. Then mentalities kept moving (the Dutch conquered England, in the completely mislabelled “Glorious Revolution”).

The French were on both sides in the XIVth and XVth centuries. It was widely evaluated, at the time, that the French side would take over (Paris was 3 times London, “France” 3 times “England”). Fact is it was a French civil war, quite a bit like the USA Secession War.

True, bad mentalities arose later, but quite a bit because of the state of perpetual war that rose all around Europe, as a consequence of the triumph of tribal superstitious hysteria a la Jehanne d’Arc.

If Francia and Britannia had been reunited further under Henry VI, the resulting superpower may have been able to reunify Frankish Europe (something Louis XI partially did).

I’m travelling through Europe, and then across the globe, so my replies shall be sparse in the next 40 hours…
PA

Dominique: Another point, from the Treaty of 843 CE Verdun, was that the French king was supposed to be “emperor in his own kingdom“. Besides, they all talked French. So the primacy of Paris would have gone on undisturbed, and that was the argument of the majority of the French.

First ferocious invaders of Eire, after the Vikings, were the Scot, BTW, not the English, Before that, Eire raided England (see saint patricius’ story)….

As I said in a comment, the reason the rebels prevailed is that they got lucky at Patay, and soon brought forward superior tech, unseen before (field guns!)

A first read leaves me very interested and I will have to take time to read again more slowly.

The first rule in avoiding fascism is for the elected governments not to lie to the people, as they of course repeatedly do. Successive British governments have lied to the people about the real intent of Brussels to create a European superstate, hence the extreme disgust with the EU in Britain as people wake up to what is happening.

French and German governments – and all the rest, but they don’t count for much – LIED to the people about the euro, which all reputable economists said COULD NOT WORK.

Holland lied to the people about “ending austerity”, or if he didn’t lie he was stupid.

When democratic governments lie then people start wondering what is the point of democracy and why not have a “strong man” to run things, especially when they are impoverished.

France is on the way to ruination at the moment, and it is not going to be pretty; it usually isn’t in France.

[…] after the roasting of Johanne’ d’Arc, southern French engineers invented field guns (this movable artillery, plus the annihilation of the long bow archers, is what turned the fortunes of the South against the London-Paris polity, and extended the so […]

This sort of troubles is a well known disease (listening to voices really happens in some brains, and the causes are not clear). Supposing she had it, of course.

At the time, for a number of reasons, there was much more craziness and madness (say from bad rye). And indeed hallucinogens were well known (say from the Amanite Tue-Mouche, a large red and white poka dots mushroom common in Europe)
PA

Modoz: Another thing is that Jehanne herself was an active conniving participant in her own legend. For example, she recognized the would be king from a crowd. But there is evidence that she had met him well before that (I completely forgot the details).

Some have presented elaborate argument that she was actually not executed (somebody else was, in exchange I guess for a relatively painless death by suffocation; they burned about one person a month in Rouen). There is actually a whole historiography that she married into some sort of little nobility, and that’s represented where she thrived after her “execution”.
PA

I’ve always been extremely suspicious of the “official” Joan story. Like, what are the odds that a simple peasant girl suddenly gains admission to the Court? Her voices could have come from temporal lobe epilepsy, or they may have been a figment of her imagination, or just deliberate lies. I’m sure she was executed – her mother afterwards petitioned for a posthumous pardon. My question is- HOW did Joan come to Yolande’s notice in the first place?

Dear Modoz: Yolande noticed and used plenty of people. After all, she was queen of 4 kingdoms. After all, this was part of a long term war between the south and the north that had been going on for centuries, if not since the Franks defeated the Goths (capital: Toulouse).

There was a huge amount of maneuvering in the two decades after Jehanne supposed execution (I say supposed, because, although I used to believe in her execution, there are really lots of things that don’t fit; like how come, in times when perfect, photographic like paintings of famous people were made, there is no picture of her? As I said the local tradition has it, with documentation, that she was not executed… Something not widely advertized.)

The south won the war against London and Paris, because the welsh archers got destroyed by the knights, and then field artillery was invented by the south.

The “king” though, could not owe his throne to an official PARJURE(somebody who had taken an oath to do something in front of justice, and then lied: that was the death penalty just there) and thus presumed heretic (lie here, lie eveywhere). So Jehanne had to be officially rehabilitated…

Of course, her mom, like everybody else, was playing the game… and then there is the story of the crazed sexual mass serial killer, Gilles de Ray, Marshall of France and companion of Jehanne (this one was hanged and roasted alive, after the due process of justice…)

[…] Patrice Ayme Says: July 16, 2014 at 7:13 am | Reply The “Normans” kings did NOT claim sovereignty over France. It’s not what happened. What happened is that the French monarchy got total direct control of England, for a number of reasons and in various ways, and that led to a Franco-French fight, misrepresented as a Franco-English war. I wrote many times on that, including in:https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/joan-of-arc-roasted-too-late/ […]

[…] I was listening the other day to a very educated French teacher, a biologist, telling a swarm of little French children, aged five to nine, the beautiful history of the victimization of Joan of Arc. Except that, as taught in France for the last 200 years, it’s sheer propaganda. […]

[…] What is clear is that the French Interior minister is such an idiot, that he makes even Dr, Goebbels sound like a genius. Or then the French Interior Minister is keen to go beyond the worst caricature of dictatorship and misinformation found in Orwell’s “1984”. Even the minutes of Joan of Arc’s trial don’t exhibit a similar madness on the part of her obviously biased accusers (and no, I am not in love with Joan of Arc). […]

[…] these terrible times, all that the French nationalists remember, is that Joan of Arc was great, for denying the legitimate king of FRANCE AND ENGLAND, then very young child, his rightful succession. Well, that’s very […]